wanabe2000: <Ezzy> Thank you for your spot on comments. Magnus Carlsen has re-juvinated chess in 2008-2010, if not before, to the extent that people look forward to his tournaments. Much like Tiger Woods, if he's in I watch golf, if not, my interest level is low. Now, having said that, I was watching the Moscow Open with interest, but when MC plays I'm glued. Unfortunally I am not a writer but MC did get a nice article in January 11, 2010 Time Magazine
"Prince of the Chessboard: The Youngest No.1 in History". It is a start.

badest: <Ezzy> You have a very good point. But ... the comparison with Kasparov (and Fischer, which some other fans use) is weak. Both K and F were very charismatic players/people both at and off the board. Magnus will never be that.

messachess: I am surprised to see it reported that Carlsen hasn't been getting the praise he deserves. I seem to recall having seen abundant praise on these pages. Of course he deserves praise. Any reservations would probably have to do with all the help that players get today from computers. And, of course, there is the special perceived advantage of his coach. Presumably past top players had a tougher time of it.

Billy Vaughan: It did feel like Magnus just stumbled his way into first place.

But I mean, really. The fact that I can, with a straight face, say he "stumbled his way into first place" means that Magnus Carlsen really does dominate. We hold Carlsen to such a high standard that we treat <winning a super-tournament> as something he can do almost by accident.

Petrosianic: Yes, but what does that mean? Really, it was Kramnik who stumbled, not Carlsen. If all you mean is that Carlsen wasn't in first place all the way through, that's true, but so what? If the person in First Place after Round 5 always won, there'd be no point in playing the rest of the tournament.

ycbaywtb: i kind of meant Carlsen is dominating because of everything rolled into one: he shot to the top of the ratings, and has stayed there, he's winning all of his tournaments, nobody seems to be able to come ahead of him, despite a +5 start, or beating him in an individual game, he is dominating because he is the best, #1 rated, and a winner overall, not because of leading a tournament throughout, BUT i see your point that dominating a single tournament can be viewed differently, he may not have dominated Corus, but he won, and in combination with the chess events of last few months, Magnus Carlsen , to me, is very dominating when it comes to CHESS

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.